Skip to main content

About your Search

English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the president about past conflicts over the deficit reduction. mark and i were talking about how far back we go. it is a few years. and i remembered him of the earlier sessions that we had. gramm-rudman one and two and gran member holland. i've googled it for all of them. and i was thinking there have been two major changes. number one is the dataset that is clearly much greater. the deficit is much greater. when i think of the ways and means committee, would change their has been in the composition. the ranking member at a time when i started went to the world bank. i worked with bill on trade. he was handling the tax material mainly. and bill was working on health care at the time. i think a second major change is very much effective today and affects us today. it is this change in composition of the republican party. i think it has moved very much more to the right. i think that makes it very difficult to handle the problems that we have before us. let me comment briefly on where we are. you offer the president yesterday. we have had spending cuts of a trillion and a half dollars. it comes f
industry and manufacturing. the second on deficit reform, and the third on improving government performance. the participants here today include brookings scholars, outside experts, and private sector representatives and leaders. our discussions will reflect a lot of the research that goes on here at brookings, and you will be able to find a number of examples of that research outside the auditorium where you came in. my recommended particular, the work of our metropolitan program on ideas on how to revitalize manufacturing, and also the work of art government studies program on how to make innovation-based economy. the growth through innovation project is an example of what we're doing increasingly here at brookings, and that is undertaking both research and public events and outreach that draw from multiple programs of research pro-guns here at the institution. and we have three of our research programs represented here today. the growth through innovation project is led inside a brookings by darrell west of our government studies program, bruce katz, of our metropolitan program of our ec
into the deficit and pay off the debt. >> you know what i didn't like today. i thought it was annoying, he may have to slow down social security payments if-- and tell you why, there's never any suggestion maybe congress shouldn't be paid salaries, the senate not be paid salaries, the president not be paid salaries, cut down on air force one. your constituent payment to go home on commercial aircraft, instead stay here and save money on travel and get the job done. there's any discussion of the politicians to take the hit it's the social security recipients. >> he wants to use the military paycheck to try to scare people and hurt the elderly. you don't have to do that, there's revenue to the treasury on a daily basis. the problem is we deficit spend about 3 to 4 billion dollars a day. we collect, we spend about 10 billion a day and that means that we deficit. we have to borrow 3 to 4 billion dollars a day. we spend more than 700 million dollars a day in interest on a national debt. there are lots of things to do. the president has lots of discretion to curb back that spending to make sure that soci
reduced the federal deficit even by a dollar. we are not going to get out of this overnight. this would allow us to keep reducing the deficits. we have a shared value in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. we are intent on that. host: how much of the budget does waste, fraud, and abuse make up? guest: i could go back to virginia beach, virginia, and we could identify waste every day. we will never eliminate it entirely. we can do a better job. it will take reforms. we are living longer and we have fewer people paying in. i want to protect those who are hurting the most, like art, who called in earlier. host: lester is a republican. caller: good morning. disability, 63 years old. my wife still works. $45,000 a less taw less than year. somehow someone is going to have to do something about this. guest: i agree completely. i believe it is immoral for one generation to pass on debt that dims their future. those who have served our country -- i am mindful of the price paid by our goldstar families. we're failing the young people. i am with you. i was over it. i believe when americans are gi
house caprettto prioritize the government's bills. guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake a deficit-reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a dead beat nation, really. i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know firsthand, second-hand, but much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, some of them realize the potential consequences. host: if president obama won on the fiscal cliff d
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
an indepth look on how to plan, how he plans to fix the deficit and whether or not it's going to work as he suggests. during sleep train's huge year end clearance sale, get beautyrest, posturepedic, even tempur-pedic mattress sets at low clearance prices. plus, get free same-day delivery, set-up, and removal of your old set. and through monday, get 3 years interest-free financing on selected models. but hurry, the special financing offer ends martin luther king, jr. day. don't miss the year end clearance sale at sleep train. superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed. ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ >>> president obama struggling with the debt ceiling, that's always a fun comedy premise. wow. this will be good. debt premise. no, president obama told congress it must raise our debt limit because the u.s. is, quote, not a deadbeat nation. yeah. and the president added, by the way, if china calls, i'm not here. >> conan o'brien poking fun at the latest financial crisis. comedians, of course, joking about it. the country's debt, one of the big issues facing the pre
, but $120 billion a year. our deficit is 1.2. all they're talking about 10% of the problem. the people don't understand. they think the 1.2 is equal to the deficit. it's only 10% of the deficit. my solution is to raise taxes by $300 billion and cut spending by $900. -- by $900 billion. i find the american public is not very smart. host: you know, that is -- the educational question is a fundamental question. here's what happens. let's talk in practical terms and not a theoretical terms. when paul ryan came out with his budget, he had some substantial changes in medicare and medicaid. over time they would've been phased in. no one over the age of 55 would've been affected by them, giving you time to really prepare for your retirement. the changes were relatively minor in the short run, but compounded over the next 20 years would've made a real difference in our indebtedness. that is not the kind of debate we had last year either at the presidential or senatorial congressional level. it was this. people want to change medicare want to push ganny. off a people who want to change medicaid are
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
important thing he could do is tax reform and deficit control. if he could put those two things together, that'd be bigger than health care. >> steve: you know what? if he were to work with the republicans talking reform-- >> i think that's a lock for next year. >> steve: well, he wants to do something about it. some republicans want to do something about it, remember last time with health care, the republicans had a bunch of ideas and the democrats shut them out completely. maybe this time bipartisan. >> brian: that's not the harry reid i know. >> alisyn: let's get to other stories in the headlines, late last noos night, two drones strikes, at least three of the bodies were burned beyond recognition. the death toll could rise in the hostage crisis at a gas plant in algeria. many were killed including one american. two americans are still missing and the crisis ended yesterday when the aerian army attacked the plant killing two militants. president obama said this is attack is another reminder of the threat posed by al-qaeda and other violent extremist groups in north africa. and the pre
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
means of controlling deficits, and a danger to this country's standing in the world financial markets. >> we must not permit and artificial debt ceiling to throw the country into default and our economy into chaos and depression, which is exactly what the republicans are threatening to do. jon: some conservative groups warn that removing the limit is a recipe for economic disaster, as we're seeing now in greece. the leaders of heritage action family research council and club for growth writing in an op ed they want congress to balance the budget within ten years and keep it balanced. quote, no american should have to tell an eight-year-old child that we cannot get our nation's house in order by the time she goes to college. there are many ways to get to a d republicans haved both an obligation to explain what path they will choose. jonah goldberg is editor at large for national review online, he's also a fox news contributor. get rid of the debt ceiling all together? jonah, what do you think about that idea? >> well i don't think it's a disaster if we got rid of the debt ceiling but i
veer -- inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put at a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to dig out of that. it is very difficult for organizations, especially in a crisis response, to think about just releasing the information before it's asked for and remove that deficit. i've been involved in several situations where the information was available and the information was understandable and probably mitigated some of the concerns, but because of the way the companies in the government work, it was difficult to make that transparent and then catching up with that with the american public is really, really difficult. nancy and marcia, we had talked about this with jay a lot. one of the problems we have in mental anguishing impacts -- measuring the impacts of the spill in the gulf is the lack of the background of the presence of hydrocarbons as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. in the context of moving beyond the direct aims of the research that's going to be conducted with the bp money, what do you think the lar
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)